3.1. Modeling of Patch Antenna
A model of the patch antenna sensor was constructed using ANSYS High Frequency Simulation Software (HFSS) 2023 R2 (Ansys Inc., Canonsburg, PA, USA). The patch antenna employed in this work was developed on an Al
2O
3 dielectric substrate. The finite element analysis was performed under sensible conditions with measured material properties such as the conductivity of Ag (6.2 × 10
8 S/cm) or indium tin oxide (90 S/cm) at room temperature. The sensor’s top surface conducting patch was designed to have a resonant frequency of 3 GHz. Several iterations of the design were modeled to achieve precise replication of the patch antenna sensor. The models were simulated with wave port analysis and then evaluated with a wired connection to the VNA to obtain the resulting S11 parameters for each sensor, where both the simulated and experimental S11 data are displayed in
Figure 4. The design criteria for the models are shown in
Table 2; a patch antenna sensor with a length of 16 mm and width of 22 mm, with a normal ground plane, provided a resonant frequency between 3 and 3.05 GHz with a lumped port analysis.
Figure 4 shows the wave port analysis and experimental S11 data of a normal ground plane and an RIS ground plane sensor with Ag as the conducting plane. In
Figure 4a, the simulated S11 for the normal ground plane sensor shows peaks at 1.36 GHz with −3.9 dB, 2.11 GHz with −12.8 dB, 2.97 GHz with −11.0 dB, 3.48 GHz with −11.6 dB, and 3.84 GHz with −8.0 dB.
Figure 4b displays the simulated S11 data for the Ag RIS sensor with resonant frequency peaks at 1.36 GHz with −4.3 dB, 2.11 GHz at −13.1 dB, 2.97 GHz at –10.1 dB, 3.49 GHz at −12.8 dB, and 3.84 GHz at –7.6 dB. The purpose of the RIS ground plane was to enhance the bandwidth and the radiation efficiency of the patch antenna sensor. However, the outcomes did not align with expectations, particularly in terms of achieving a broader bandwidth at lower frequency and larger relative signal peak shifts and intensities, such as those shown by the work of Tchafa et al. [
6]. It is worth noting that direct comparisons with their results might not be entirely accurate, given the differences in material systems and testing temperature ranges used in each work. Regardless, the results in
Figure 4 indicate that the conventional and RIS ground planes exhibited similar characteristics, albeit with minor discrepancies in signal strength. Further experimentation is necessary to fully understand the effects of the RIS design.
The sensors were fabricated and evaluated to determine the accuracy of the resonant frequency from the models, and these are also shown in
Figure 4a,b, respectively. The S11 data for the Ag normal ground plane sensor show peaks at 1.30 GHz with −8.0 dB, 2.01 GHz with −12.9 dB, 2.81 GHz with −32.7 dB, and 3.48 GHz with −16.4 dB. The fabricated Ag sensor with a RIS ground plane displayed peaks at 1.38 GHz with −8.7 dB, 2.15 GHz with −13.9 dB, 2.83 GHz with −17.2 dB, and 3.54 GHz with −28.8 dB. The sensor pattern for the fabricated Ag sensors shows a similar match with the pattern from the ANSYS modeling with minor discrepancies in the signal strength and frequency location, but this can be attributed to interstitial capacitance due to small alterations in layer resolution during fabrication causing the peak frequency peaks.
Figure 5 shows wave port analysis and experimental S11 data of sensors with an ITO normal ground plane and RIS ground plane. In
Figure 5a, the simulated S11 for the normal ground plane sensor shows peaks at 1.35 GHz with −1.4 dB, 2.11 GHz with −4.9 dB, 2.94 GHz with −14.0 dB, 3.47 GHz with −4.7 dB, and 3.81 GHz with −22.7 dB. The simulated S11 data for the RIS ITO sensor are displayed in
Figure 5b with resonant frequency peaks at 1.35 GHz with −1.9 dB, 2.11 GHz at −6.2 dB, 2.95 GHz at –18.3 dB, 3.47 GHz at −5.7 dB, and 3.82 GHz at –26.7 dB. The simulated models show a reasonable pattern match. There are a variety of reasons for the slight frequency shift and altered peak intensities between the simulated and measured signals. Many of these reasons are related to the difference between the ideal nature of the computationally simulated sensor response and that of actual sensor testing, which includes extrinsic effects related to the electrical connections, operation, and environment. Some of the main extrinsic effects that could lead to the simulated/measured signal variance are the following: (1) impedance mismatch (set to a constant, unchanging 50 ohms for the simulation) is expected to arise between the VNA, transmission cable, and sensor; (2) parasitic capacitance from slight geometric imperfections in the real sensor occur due to the imperfect fabrication process; and (3) inadequate shielding around the transmission cable during measurements would result in additional interference. These all would cause amplitude variations in the signal relating to differences between the simulated and measured data; but, at the current time, the relative contribution of each is not known for this work. Future sensor development will specifically focus on the relative effect of these extrinsic contributions on sensor performance to further improve accuracy and resolution.
The ITO normal and RIS sensors were then fabricated and the S11 data were collected and compared against the simulated data described previously.
Figure 5a includes measured data (and simulated data), where the normal ground plane ITO sensor showed measured peaks at 1.42 GHz with −8.5 dB, 2.13 GHz with −8.8 dB, 2.80 GHz with −9.0 dB, and 3.53 GHz with −30.1 dB. Similarly,
Figure 5b shows the S11 data of the fabricated ITO sensor with an RIS ground plane (in addition to the simulated data), and the sensors produced peaks at 1.39 GHz with −7.8 dB, 2.09 GHz with −12.1 dB, 2.78 GHz with −14.3 dB and 3.47 GHz with −30.5 dB. The manufactured sensors have revealed similar peak locations but had a range of signal strength which may be attributed to the low conductivity of ITO at room temperature. The locations of the peaks are slightly downshifted compared to the simulations, most likely as a result of interstitial and parasitic capacitance from the fabrication process.
3.3. Normal Ground Plane Sensors
Both the Ag and ITO sensors were tested in a truly wireless scenario at the higher temperature regimes with a sweep between 2.5 and 4.0 GHz using a dual antenna setup presented earlier in
Figure 3. The signal collected for the sensors was the reflection coefficient (S21 parameter), which represents the transmission of the antenna system. This measurement is relevant in assessing how well the antenna transmits the signal to the sensor and is reflected to the receiving antenna. The S21 focuses on the transmission aspect, as compared to the S11 measurements completed in
Figure 4 and
Figure 5, which gives insight into the antenna’s ability to efficiently couple with the transmission medium.
Figure 7 displays the S21 parameter as a function of frequency from 2.50 GHz to 4.0 GHz for the Ag patch sensor with the normal ground plane. The S21 sweep showed three distinct peaks that appeared across the frequency scan. There is a sharp peak (P1) at 3.034 GHz and a broader peak (P2) with a center at 3.439 GHz (with the band stretching from 3.4 to 3.5 GHz). There is a third peak (P3) with an average center at 3.76 GHz. The P1 at 3.034 will be the focus of the data analysis as this is the resonant frequency of the Ag patch sensor with the normal ground plane. The frequency data were analyzed by determining the minimum across the frequency sweep which is the location of the sensor’s resonant frequency. For the Ag normal ground plane sensor at 0.35 m, the frequency sweeps showed the resonant peak shifting lower with increasing temperature starting at 3.034 GHz at 50 °C and ending at 3.018 GHz when at 600 °C. This can be seen in
Figure 7. As the temperature of the sensor increased, the resonant frequency shifted to a lower frequency due to the increase in the dielectric constant of the Al
2O
3 substrate, as discussed above. The change in dielectric constant for Al
2O
3 was very consistent and predictable, which resulted in a very predictable shift in the resonance frequency of the sensor. Another notable attribute was the change in magnitude as a function of temperature. Initially, during the data collection from room temperature to 250 °C, the magnitude increased. However, the exact reason for this trend remains unclear, likely due to the presence of multiple factors affecting the sensor’s performance. As the temperature rises, the electrical conductivity of the silver conductive patch decreases, leading to a less efficient radiation field emitted by the sensor. This decrease in efficiency is likely a primary cause of the observed decrease in magnitude. In contrast, for sensors employing ITO, the trend would differ, as the electrical conductivity of ITO increases with temperature. Nevertheless, even at its maximum conductivity, ITO still does not exactly match the performance of silver sensors in terms of magnitude. While magnitude changes can be informative for monitoring other physical parameters such as pressure, they may be less useful for temperature measurement.
As was initially completed for the Ag sensor, the ITO sensor with a normal ground plane was tested at the same initial distance (0.35 m). The S21 parameter as a function of frequency data is shown in
Supplementary Figure S1. The first peak had an average center of 2.64 GHz (P1), and a second sharper peak with a center frequency of 2.996 GHz (P2). A third peak (P3) is seen with an average center frequency of 3.53 GHz. The peak used for analysis is P2 at 2.996 GHz because the peak intensity is maximum near the simulated resonant frequency of the ITO patch sensor. For the ITO normal ground plane sensor at 0.35 cm, the frequency data showed the initial peak of 2.996 GHz at 50 °C and ending at 2.969 GHz when at 1000 °C. The ITO patch antenna sensor showed a decrease in resonant frequency with increasing temperature similar to the Ag patch antenna sensor. The one notable difference between the two sensors was that the Ag peak intensity decreases with increasing temperature whereas the ITO showed increasing peak intensity with increasing temperature. This was to be expected due to the conductivity of the two materials used. Ag’s conductivity decreases with increasing temperature which affects the strength of the radiating fields of the sensor.
To better visualize the frequency peak shifting for P1 for the Ag normal ground plane and P2 of the ITO normal ground plane sensors, the minimum peak intensity was determined from the data and plotted as a function of temperature for the heating and cooling regimes.
Figure 8a displays the plot of the target peak minimum as a function of temperature for the Ag normal ground plane at 0.35 m. The initial frequency at 50 °C was 3.034 GHz and incrementally shifted to 3.018 GHz when it reached 600 °C. The sensitivity of the sensor was calculated by taking the minimum from one frequency sweep at a specified temperature, which was then subtracted from the minimum frequency from the next frequency sweep at the next temperature collection, and then divided by the change in temperature. The average incremental shift for the heating and cooling cycles for the Ag sensor was calculated as 27.96 kHz/°C.
Figure 8b displays the plot of the target peak minimum as a function of temperature for the ITO normal ground plane sensor at 0.35 m with the initial starting frequency at 2.996 GHz at 50 °C and shifting lower to 2.969 GHz once it reached 1000 °C. The calculated sensitivity of the ITO sensor came to be 28.42 kHz/°C which showed a similar trend to the Ag normal ground plane sensor at the same distance. For both the Ag and ITO sensors, there was a widened gap near the end of the heating cycle and the beginning of the cooling cycle. This difference is associated with heat transfer and conduction, where the thermal properties of the Al
2O
3 substrate were cooling slower than the furnace revealing a small delay in the resonant frequency shift. However, the resonant frequency of the sensors followed a linear trend back to room temperature. The linear trend that was fitted for both the Ag normal ground plane sensor and the ITO normal ground plane sensor each showed an R
2 value of 0.97 and 0.95, respectively.
To further understand the response of the normal ground plane sensors as a function of distance, the sensors were tested at both 0.50 m and 0.75 m.
Figure 9a displays the plot of the target peak minimum as a function of temperature for Ag normal ground plane sensors at 0.35 m, 0.50 m, and 0.75 m (refer to
Figures S2 and S3 for raw data). The plot shows solid shapes for the data points during the heating regime and hollow data points for the cooling regime. The data points overlap over a majority of the temperature sweep which shows the consistent linearity of the sensors through each test. The designations for the following sensitivity plots are seen as N-35, which represents a normal ground plane sensor tested at a distance of 0.35 m. For the Ag normal ground plane sensor at a distance of 0.50 m (sample N-50), the starting frequency was 2.919 GHz at 50 °C and reached 2.887 GHz at 600 °C. The overall sensitivity calculated was 57.95 kHz/°C. The R
2 value was 0.90. For the Ag normal ground plane sensor at 0.75 m (sample N-75), the initial start frequency was at 3.106 GHz at 50 °C and ended at 3.073 GHz when it reached 600 °C. The calculated sensitivity of the sensor was 58.64 kHz/°C with an R
2 value of 0.96.
Figure 9b displays the plot of the target peak minimum as a function of temperature for ITO normal ground plane sensors tested at a distance of 0.35 m, 0.50 m, and 0.75 m (refer to
Figures S4 and S5 for raw data). For the ITO normal ground plane sensor at 0.50 m, the resonant frequency started at 2.992 GHz at 50 °C and ended at 2.959 GHz once it reached 1000 °C with the resulting sensitivity calculated to be 34.34 kHz/°C. The R
2 value for the ITO normal ground plane sensors at 0.50 m was 0.96 and at a 0.75 m distance was 0.92.
There are some key points to note. First, there is a definitive shift in the sensitivity at each of the interrogating distances seen by the slight change in the slope of each plot in
Figure 9a,b. This trend was similarly observed in an experiment reported by Albrecht et al. They evaluated an LC resonant sensor in the near field at three distances of 0, 5, and 10 mm with a reported sensitivity of 11.4, 3.3, and 1.8 kHz/°C, respectively [
13]. In another work, Ma et al. analyzed the frequency sensitivity as a function of the interrogating distance and reported two regimes for a range of distances. In their work, the LC sensor produced a frequency response of 11.2 MHz/°C between 1 and 3 mm and 0.6 MHz/°C at distances of 4–10 mm [
14]. Both regimes from this work showed a linear fit. It must be noted that both of these studies were working in the near field and the current work was conducted in the far field. In addition, the reported sensitivity from the near-field experiments was decreasing as the interrogation distance was increasing. In the current work, the sensitivity increased as the interrogation distance increased until the sensor reached a distance in which it was not trackable. This is believed to be from the power difference between the near-field antenna being used versus the far-field antennas and the power loss from the extended distances. Near fields are dominated by inductance coupling and have a minimal effect on power loss at such small distances. In the far field, the power loss from the signal decreases following a 1/r
2 resulting in resonant peak broadening and becoming more difficult to identify the minimum peak intensity from one sweep to the next. There is a limit where the frequency change between sweeps will be unreadable to the VNA.
Second, the initial resonant frequency is different at each distance. It is not a large change, but it is observable and was seen by other researchers completing near-field passive sensor testing [
14,
15,
16]. Ma et al. showed that as the distance increased, the initial frequency peak tended to shift to a higher frequency with a lower peak intensity and there was a larger shift with higher conductivity. Baù et al. conducted similar experiments up to 15 mm at room temperature and described the drift due to parasitic capacitance and provided a solution to reduce this by incorporating a compensation circuit to eliminate the frequency drift. Wang et al. showed the signal response as a function of distance, yet also showed there is a slight frequency shift as a function of distance during the tests starting from 0 mm and moving out to 12.5 mm. The initial frequency peak started at 1.71 GHz and stopped at 1.69 GHz. Each of the three near-field studies showed that the frequency drift occurred, and it was also noticeable in the current far-field work. The authors did not note or address the reason for the frequency shift with the change in sensor distance; the current authors of this paper do not have an explanation for this shift either at this time. Further studies will need to be focused on this effect to better understand and account for this effect for accurate temperature measurements.
Finally, comparing the Ag and the ITO compositions, the sensitivity response was within similar ranges at each of the respective distances, although the Ag sensor at 0.50 m was higher when compared to the ITO at the same distance. This variance could contribute to the difference in conductivity between Ag and ITO since the Ag conductivity will decrease with the increasing temperature versus ITO conductivity increasing. It is known that conductivity influences the overall peak intensity which can affect the overall sensitivity of the sensor; this was also observed in [
14,
17]. The variance in sensitivity as a function of distance is not fully understood and is being further investigated.
3.4. Reactive Impedance Surface Ground Plane
The RIS ground plane was utilized to increase the bandwidth and signal strength of the sensor, which should improve the sensitivity and resolution of the temperature measurements. Also, an increase in the bandwidth and signal strength would permit further freedom in sensor geometry and size, where potentially small sensor designs can be achieved. The top patch dimensions were held constant for the RIS back sensors and were evaluated under the same operating conditions as the normal ground plane sensors to comparatively analyze the performance at each of the three set distances.
Figure 10a displays the plot of the target peak minimum as a function of temperature for the Ag RIS-backed sensor at each of the three distances of 0.35 m, 0.50 m, and 0.75 m (refer to
Figures S6–S8 for raw data). The Ag RIS patch sensor at 0.35 m had a starting frequency of 3.055 GHz shifting to a lower frequency as temperature increased to 600 °C. The process of calculating the sensitivity was the same as discussed previously in
Section 3.2. The sensitivity for the Ag RIS patch sensor was determined to be 22.73 kHz/°C. When evaluated at an interrogation distance of 0.50 m, the Ag RIS patch sensor had a starting point of 2.954 GHz, and its resulting sensitivity was 50.91 kHz/°C. The results for the Ag RIS patch sensor at 0.75 m are as follows: the initial frequency was 3.119 GHz at 50 °C and had an average frequency shift of 66.82 kHz/°C until it reached a minimum frequency of 3.094 GHz once at 600 °C. Each of the tests shown fit linearly for the heating and cooling regime. The R
2 values for the Ag RIS patch sensors were determined as 0.96, 0.96, and 0.97 for each of the respective interrogating distances of 0.35 m, 0.50 m, and 0.75 m.
Figure 10b represents the plot of the target peak minimum as a function of temperature for the ITO RIS patch sensors evaluated at the same three distances of 0.35 m, 0.50 m, and 0.75 m (refer to
Figures S9–S11 for raw data). At a distance of 0.35 m, the ITO RIS patch sensor had an initial frequency of 3.063 GHz at 50 °C and finished at 3.029 GHz at 1000 °C. The average sensitivity shift for the sensor at this distance was 36.32 kHz/°C. The ITO RIS sensor tested at 0.50 m had a calculated sensitivity of 40.53 kHz/°C and for the 0.75 m test, the average temperature sensitivity was 57.89 kHz/°C. The three tests of an ITO RIS patch sensor were linearly fit and the R
2 values were 0.95 for the 0.35 m, 0.96 for the 0.50 m, and 0.92 for the 0.75 m evaluations.
The RIS ground plane was evaluated as a way to increase resonant frequency peak intensity by filtering out unwanted signals coming to the sensor. The RIS sensors performed similarly to the normal ground plane sensors with their resulting sensitivity values being within ±10 kHz/°C for each interrogating distance compared to the respective normal ground plane but did not show consistent improvement throughout all experiments. The RIS sensors did not show a distinct improvement in the overall signal intensity to make a noticeable difference either. The RIS sensor’s sensitivity values did follow the same trend as the normal ground plane sensors in that they increased with the increasing distance. The RIS experiments did show the same shift of the initial frequency position in comparison to the normal ground plane sensors which confirms the belief that the time-gated signal may cause the difference in the initial starting point and does not affect the overall performance of the sensor.
An independent statistical t-test was conducted on the sensors with the RIS ground plane data in comparison to the baseline normal ground plane to evaluate the difference significance. A t-critical value, as the threshold for the null hypothesis, was calculated based on a significance level of 0.05. For the ground planes based on the Ag composition, the t-values of −4.10, −2.24, and −2.49 were calculated for the measuring distances of 0.35, 0.5, and 0.75 m, respectively. With the critical t-value being 2.02, the RIS ground plane was found to be different for all distances but had a negative impact on the sensitivity of the sensors. This means the application of the RIS ground plane using the Ag composition did not improve the performance positively. The same t-test was conducted for the RIS ground plane using ITO composition with the critical t-value being 1.99. The t-values were calculated as 6.71, 2.28, and 0.11 at 0.35, 0.50, and 0.75 m, respectively. These values indicated that the RIS ground was different at ≤0.5 m and the response was an improvement. These mixed results between compositions and distances result in some uncertainty in the effect of the RIS ground plane, and further testing of the sensor designs, and material systems will need to be completed to further understand the cause of their effects.